DCIT-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S. NIC CONSTRUCTION INDIA (P) LTD., BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 894/IND/2018Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 January 2020AY 2012-1315 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had given the AO sufficient opportunity to rebut the evidences filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s finding.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,81,29,128/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who deleted a part of the addition, sustaining Rs. 16,27,243/-. The revenue appealed against the deletion.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of bogus sundry creditors by accepting additional evidence without proper inquiry and opportunity to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Arun Jain, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, D.R
Hearing: 07.01.2020Pronounced: 22.01.2020

आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the revenue is directed against order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhopal dated 14.9.2018 pertaining to the

1.

[ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,65,01,885/- on account of bogus sundry creditors by ignoring the fact that assessee had failed to furnish bank statements of creditors not only in assessment proceedings, but in remand report proceedings and in proceedings before CIT(A).

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), Bhopal has erred in stating that appellant was not in a position or in circumstances to furnish confirmations and bank statements by ignoring the settled principle of law that onus of proving the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of sundry creditors and genuineness of its purchase is on the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) Bhopal has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,65,01,885/- on account of bogus sundry creditors without conducting an inquiry from bank w.r.t. genuineness of sundry creditors when there is absence of bank statements of creditors. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) Bhopal has erred in accepting additional evidences under rule 46A, despite of the facts that assessee’s case does not fall in any of the four circumstances mentioned in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. Briefly stated facts are that in this case the assessee had filed a return of income on 29.9.2012 declaring total income at Rs.1,00,13,930/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] ‘the Act’) was framed vide order dated 13.3.2015, thereby the A.O. made addition of Rs.1,81,29,128/- in respect of unexplained creditors and disallowance out of diesel expenditure of Rs.7,92,727/-, out of repair and maintenance of Rs.5,85,165/-, out of loading and unloading expenses of Rs.1,11,572/- and out of disallowance of travelling expenses of Rs.22,805/-. Hence, the A.O. has assessed income at Rs.2,96,55,330/- against the returned income of Rs.1,13,930/-. The A.O. observed that the assessee had shown sundry creditors of Rs.3,25,89,759/-. To verify the sundry creditors, the A.O. issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. The A.O. in para 4 of his order observed as under:

“The details of the sundry creditors whose letters were received unserved/no information received is as under:

[ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal]

3.

Aggrieved against this addition assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on this issue, thereby out of addition of Rs.1,81,29,128/-, he sustained addition of Rs.16,27,243/- and rest of the addition was deleted. Against this order, the revenue is in appeal. The grievance of the revenue in this appeal is twofold. Firstly, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the additional evidences and secondly on the basis of these additional evidences deleted the addition. We find that Ld. CIT(A) partly deleted the addition by observing as under:

“5.8 The appellant has contended that it had filed confirmation with the A.O. vide letters dated 09.1.2015 and [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal]

[ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] [ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal]

4.

The above finding of fact is not rebutted by the revenue. Moreover, Ld. CIT(A) has categorically observed that the confirmation was also filed with the A.O. vide letter dated 9.1.2015. It is also transpired from the records that the Ld. CIT(A) had sought remand report from the A.O. in respect of additional evidences filed by the assessee.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the confirmations were filed first time before the Ld. CIT(A) and no opportunity was granted to the A.O. for rebutting the same. 14

[ ] [M/s. NIC Construction India P. Ltd., Bhopal] From the records, it is clear that the A.O. was given sufficient opportunity to rebut the evidences so filed.

Under these facts, we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby affirmed.

The grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order was pronounced in the open court on 22 .01.2020.

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →